KnE Social Sciences | The First International Research Conference on Economics and Business (IRCEB) | pages: 467–481


In ruling the country, the Indonesian government applies decentralization, dekonsentrasi, and assistance duties principles. By applying decentralization principle, the authority of the central government is given to the regional autonomy, then the regional autonomy is given the authority to rule and manage its own region based on the society's interests [9,29,14,16,22]. In conducting the governance, each region is given an authority to build partnership with other regions and third parties. The interregional partnership within regions is a medium to strengthen the interregional relationship and interests within the framework of Indonesia, synchronize the regional development, synergize the regions and third parties' potential, as well as improve the sharing of knowledge, technology, and fiscal capacity [31,20].

By paying attention to the core of the intended partnership, the policy of the interregional partnership is directed to improve the cooperation to create the synergy of provinces, regencies, and cities which is done within bilateral and regional scope based on the orientation of the regional development policy [6,17,18,25].

From its substance, it can be explained that the interregional partnership is aiming at improving the prosperity of the civil society. This idea goes hand in hand with the idea of government's existence to give public services to the civil society. In this context, the role of province government as a coordinator of regencies/cities is significantly needed. The impressions made by the regencies/cities development which go separately and less coordinated are very obvious since the implementation of Undang-Undang Pemerintahan di Daerah in 1999 which was later revised in 2004. The interregional partnership is an issue that is needed to be highlighted regarding to its role to maintain the national security and fulfill the society's needs by passing the administrative border. Basically, the interregional partnership in regencies, cities, or provinces level has existed and run very well. Yet, the new partnership which will be performed has to consider the purpose, format, and relevant model which everyone agrees with. The separate and less coordinated development in regencies or cities are very clear since the implementation of Undang-Undang Pemerintahan di Daerah in 1999 which later revised in 2004. The decreasing of regional management coordination is strengthen by the fact that the focus of the regional autonomy after the new order is in regencies or cities. The control of province government as the development coordinator in regencies or cities is weaker along with the autonomy strengthen in the regencies and cities. Consequently, the issues about regional development is lack of focus (Minister Regulation Number 22, 2009; the Agreement between East Java Province and Regencies and Cities Governments, 2009; Nasikh et al. 2015).

The governance, based on the Constitution Number 32 year 2004 about Local Government, is not explicitly giving a space to regional problem management. It appears from these two phenomena. First, the administrative territory division in Indonesia does not explicitly show the interregional management. The constitution, in one of the articles, states that Indonesia is divided into Provinces and each province is divided into regencies and cities which are ruled by the local government (article 2 verse 1). Second, the inadequate chance of inter-regencies or cities development is highlighted in the Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (SPPN) which was constituted in 2004.

The explanation of Constitution number 25 year 2004 about Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (SPPN), article 2 verse (4) part A about the doer of development highlights the issue. The doer of development is the governments (central, province, regencies, and cities), companies, and civil society. In the system of local development planning, the planning mechanism is carried out by Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan (Musrenbang). Musrenbang in the development planning system is only done in villages, sub-districts, and SKPD (Satuan Kerja Pemerintah Daerah) level in regencies, cities, or provinces. This regulation does not clearly give chances to forum of regional development planning which happens to be more than one regency or city within a province.

The decrease of the regional management coordination intensity is strengthen by the fact that the focus of the regional autonomy after the new order is in regencies or cities. The control of province government as the coordinator of regencies and cities development is not as strong as before, along with the stronger autonomy in regencies or cities. Consequently, the regional development issues get less focus. From the explanation, the model of interregional partnership to improve the prosperity of civil society in East Java is significantly identified. Therefore, the research problem is how is the model of the interregional partnership to improve the prosperity of civil society in East Java and how is the role of East Java government to implement the interregional partnership to improve the prosperity of the civil society in East Java.

2. Literature Review

The characteristic of interregional partnership which has horizontal relation and interregional network-based is different from the characteristic of rational-based organization. The rational organization emphasizes the hierarchy relationship pattern which sees organization as a coherent unit with clear goals. Furthermore, the rational organization pattern has top to bottom structure in which the organization decision is dominated by the central authority.

The networking-patterned interregional partnership is based on the interrelation which is built freely and independently by the region. In the networking pattern, there is no central authority structure. All the organization goals are made from the agreement of all members of the interregional partnership forum. The different character of organization is somehow unclear, especially in the implementation of the interregional partnership which has centralistic history for a long time [28].

The opinion about the factors in the regionalization and regional partnership can be explained by the regionalization process and communication model that is done so far. In the developing country, the interregional partnership has not meant to collaborate yet. The example is Integrated Area Planning (henceforth IAP). The problem is very complex because it cannot be solved by administrative border-based development planning.

IAP model has been recognized as a model which reduces the conflict in administrative areas. This is because of the effectiveness and good development integration of sectors and institutions related to the sectors in the certain area. This model is accepted as a reaction towards the weakness of sectorial planning, especially the inter-sector coordination. Even though this model is reliable, there is some shortcoming that needs to be focused on. For example, the formal structure has not been designed to solve the technical problems in each regency or city. As a result, the formal authority supports is not given so that it is difficult to implement it [11,24,27].


This research was an application research which used an analysis model of public policy implementation. The use of public policy analysis was expected to describe factual and valid data systematically. This research used descriptive qualitative approach which described the fact in the field by using narration. The research took place in five regencies, namely Lamongan, Tuban, Tulungagung, Kediri, and Madiun. The data collection was carried out directly by having closed questionnaire; in which questionnaires were distributed to respondents in order to get to know the application of the competence standard of position structural in the research setting.

After that, the data were analyzed by using processes proposed by Miles and Huberman (2003). There were four steps done in the data collection process. The steps were data reduction, data display, data verification, and conclusion. The findings, which were obtained from either qualitative or quantitative research, were exposed to a validity test. Validation was a degree of accuracy which compared the research objects and data obtained. Meanwhile, reliability was related to the consistency degree and findings stability. Five process of analysis proposed by Miles and Huberman (2003) were: (1) defining the research focus of the interregional partnership model to improve the prosperity of civil society as well as the role of East Java government to implement it, (2) collecting data related to stakeholders who actively participated in the interregional partnership to improve the prosperity of the civil society, (3) making a plan of further data collection process based on the previous findings, (4) developing analytic questions to obtain further data, and (5) determining further focus targets. The researchers attempted to obtain better data by conducting another interviews. When there was unsynchronized data from the same informant, member checking was carried out.


In developing an interregional partnership, the regency or city governments had to design institutional format which was synchronized to the goals or missions of the members by involving the stakeholders. The institutional format had to be supported by good mechanism which ensured the goal achievement effectively. The stakeholders involved also had to possess sustainable funding commitment. It meant every regency or city had to provide daily fund in their revenue and expenditure budget to support the partnership operational. The supporting system must have also been prepared properly, including providing human resources who were able to manage the interregional partnership professionally.

Generally, the purpose of this research was to get to know how important the partnership of sectorial development in the development process in the local, regional, and national level was. The specific purpose was to identify issues and problems in the sectorial development in the regional autonomy and decentralization era, and inventory of the pattern of sectorial development partnership which has run in the East Java province.

As the follow up action from article 105 of Constitution Number 32 Year 2004 about local governments, there were some policies issued to manage the interregional partnership. The implementation of the interregional partnership had to be based on Law Number 50 Year 2007 the government regulation about the governance, Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 22 Year 2009 about technical guideline of an interregional partnership, and The Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 23 Year 2009 about the procedure of management and supervision of the interregional partnership as the legal basis. Generally, the East Java government had been playing an active role. Even, substantially and institutionally the government has been following the constitutions.

Partnership Strategy of the East Java Government

To achieve its vision and mission, the East Java Government has designed partnership strategy by the interregional partnership. The partnership strategy was as followed. First, partnership revitalization was to activate the previous partnership which was still less intensive. Second, partnership extension was to add more fields to work on together. Next, partnership expansion was to add more partners with more varied candidates.Last, factors contributing to the interregional partnership.

Interregional networks were very significant as an alternative to free the force, hierarchy, and legal-formal cooperation. This pattern became an option in the management of interregional network because this pattern applied equality principle in which every regency or city got the same position, without any hierarchy like the one in the legal-formal regulation. In this model, there was also an agreement which said that every government was linked and dependent to one another.

The interregional networks development in the regency level was affected by some factors. There were at least 10 reasons of why regencies or cities built the partnership. First, the existence of focus outward from the regencies or cities joining in the network. Second, the dream of regencies or cities to look at a bigger overview. Next, the reflection of each regency or city. Moreover, self-awareness from the regency or city about their role and responsibility. Fifth, the capacity to share and learn. Another reason was the effective communication among the regencies or cities. Seventh, the speed in the forum (the ability to fulfill the promise and achieve the goals in a short time). Eighth, the accountability in the interregional partnership forum. Next, the transparency in the decision making process. Last, the clear institutional system (the authority, the responses to the unequal authority and resources, etc.).

The Effectiveness of Interregional Partnership

The development of the interregional partnership and the management of partnership institutions in Indonesia were supposed to be done for the sake of interregional networks. However, the effectiveness of interregional partnership depended on these seven variables. First, transparency. The existence of transparency was needed to ease the supervision process and make sure that the members obeyed the rules. Second, robustness. It meant that the effectiveness of a partnership institution depended on the robustness in solving all the problems occurred and responding to the development in their members without being radical. Next, transformation rules. It meant that the frequent transformation rules caused the ineffectiveness of the partnership as well as weakening because members got easier access to change the burdening rules. Another variable was capacity of government, which meant the effectiveness of a partnership highly depended on the capacity of governments in implementing the rules in their region. Moreover, the distribution of powers also became an important variable as the gap in the distribution of powers could limit the effectiveness since the dominant members could control other members. Next, the interdependence level; the effectiveness of the partnership depended on the interdependence level among the members. The interdependence existed when a member's action affected other members in the partnership. Furthermore, intellectual order also became a significant variable as the partnership could not run for long time when the intellectual substructure which became the base of the partnership failed to perform its function.

The Ideal Model of the Interregional Partnership

Up to now, there were lots of forums or institutions of interregional partnership with wide range of forms. This phenomenon happened because the interregional partnership was in the middle of opportunity structure and need structure which supported the interregional partnership in Indonesia.

The model of interregional partnership was reflected in the principle of establishment and management of interregional partnership. The principles were as followed. First, equal partnership. In a cooperation, the interaction between members was supposed to follow the equity principle as well as its gain. It meant that if the interaction could only give advantage to certain members, the interaction did not fit the partnership criteria. Second, synergic and mutual. The strength of a cooperation lied in the commitment to develop the sectorial synergy. Another principle was need-based principle. It meant that every partnership must have been based on the members' interest. This implied to the participative cooperation and involvement of all members which later produced a consensus. Next, engagement and ownership. The sustainability of a cooperation was highly related to the level of activeness and engagement of the members. The involvement of members reflected their commitment and ownership to the cooperation forum. Flexibility was also the important principle as it allowed change in the partnership. However, the flexibility had to be able to prioritize the obedience to the decision and sustainability of the partnership. Next, legitimation. The interregional partnership must have been able to gain support from the regions as the political entity. To be legitimated, the institutions had to get support from the government, parliament, and society. Moreover, effective. The partnership institutions would be able to develop when they could prove that they were effective to achieve the goals. The effectiveness of a partnership could be seen from some variables, such as transparency, robustness, rule transformation, capacity of government, distribution of power, interdependence, and intellectual order. Moreover, accountability and transparency principles were also significant as they were not only related to the fund using, but also became the spirit of the process and steps of the partnership. In the decision making and implementation, for example. Last but not least, sustainability. The interregional partnership must meant to be for a long term. The sustainability had to be the basic principles in the interregional partnership.

5. Discussions

To support and make the management of interregional partnership more synergic, there were a lot of things to be carried out. The table 1 below described each institution's role.

Table 1

The Development of interregional partnership and Role of Institutions.

Issue/Agenda Role of Governments
Central Government Province Government Regency/City Government
Institutional Format Building incentive structure (either institutional or individual) for the involved party in the interregional partnership Giving assistance to the regencies or cities to arrange the feasible institutional format for the partnership form chosen Planning an institutional format needed and involving the related stakeholder
Working Mechanism Providing choices of working mechanism forms which was able to support the effectiveness of the cooperation Giving assistance To the regencies or cities to arrange the feasible institutional format for the partnership form chosen Planning a working mechanism which ensured the achievement of goals and missions
Funding Providing funding incentive to the newly developed interregional partnership Providing supporting budget, especially for the institutional setup Providing routine budget in APBD to support the interregional partnership
The Supporting System and Human Resources Providing staff development programs and supporting system setup Planning operational programs to support the supporting system and human resources needed Preparing the supporting system needed, including the staffs who were expert in the interregional partnership management
Legal Basis Establishing rules that guaranteed the regencies or cities to have partnership based on their local needs Performing supervision to ensure the interregional partnership was in the line of the constitution Issuing policies which provides law warranty to the interregional partnership
Sources: Algore. 1994; Askenas, et al., 1995; Cheema and Dennis, 1983; Heckscher and Donnellon, 1994. Le & Syed, 2015.

The Interregional Partnership Agreement

In a partnership, there were three main elements namely the existence of parties, interaction, and mutual goals elements (according to table 1). Those three elements must exist in the interregional partnership. The first element, the existence of two parties or more described the interests which affected each other so that the interaction happened to achieve the mutual goals. The kind of interaction which did not aim at fulfilling each other's interest could not be considered as a partnership.

An interaction among some parties must have possessed an equity principle. It meant that the interregional partnership must not give advantage to only certain party and disadvantage to other parties. Otherwise, it could not be considered as a partnership. The interregional partnership had to place the parties involved in the balance and equal position as it aimed at fulfilling each other's needs and causing no disadvantage to certain parties. There were lots of advantages of establishing interregional partnership. First, it could avoid the interregional conflict management in which the partnership was able to perform its function to be the interaction and dialog forums for the regencies or cities. Second advantage was efficiency and services standardization, in which the interregional partnership could be used by the regencies or cities to develop some actions. In the context of public services, the interregional partnership supported the regencies or cities to apply the efficiency and standardization of interregional services. Next, economic development, in which the interregional partnership would support the economic development of certain areas. It was because the logic of the economic development was not always similar to the logic of the administrative area control. Furthermore, environmental management also became another advantage, in which the interregional partnership would support the environmental management which became the collective problem. Moreover, the interregional partnership was very beneficial because of some reasons. First reason, the sharing of experiences. By establishing a cooperation, the regencies or cities were able to share their experiences, so regencies or cities could avoid the similar mistakes made by other regencies. Second, sharing of benefits. The cooperation could possibly give access to regencies or cities to share benefits. The collective management of local potential would give profits and benefits to the regencies or cities. Another reason was sharing of burdens. By establishing an interregional partnership, the regencies or cities were able to cost proportionally, so there was no regency or city felt the burden. In other words, the big budget of facilities management and providing could be shared, so they did not get the financial burden from certain regencies or cities [32,12,5,15].

Besides, the interregional partnership that applied governance principles connected the society, governments, and private parties in the policy making. There were some basics in the interregional partnership development, namely (a) geographically neighborhood basis, which made neighbor regencies or cities possess high potential of conflict as well as high potential of mutual interest, (b) potential equity basis, as the regencies or cities had similar potentials, such as tourism, sea potential, as well as similar problems and competitions; (c) problem equity basis, as the establishment of cooperation was usually based on the similar problems, such as social conflict traumatic and violence in conflict-potential areas [8,13].

The Institutional Format Alternative of an Interregional Partnership

As every interregional partnership had to be based on the mutual interest from the members of the organization, every establishment process of interregional partnership had to possess participative and flexible principles so that it could result in consensus. As a result, the format of the establishment process of interregional partnership needed to be developed step by step. Another important point was another institutional format was highly appreciated regarding to the different needs of the regions as the members of the interregional partnership. In the wider range, there were some implementations of the interregional networks in the district level. First, informational networks, in which the region created a forum as the media to exchange information related to policies, programs, technology, and potential solution to the mutual problems. Second, developmental networks, in which the engagement of each member was higher as the interaction among regions was not only merely about information, but also including education and public services which directly improved the information capacity in order to execute the solutions of each problem. Another implementation was out search networks, in which the interregional network was more solid because of the existence of strategy programs for each region. The program was adopted and conducted in other regions (usually facilitated by another organization as a partner or funding sources). Fourth, action network. It was the most solid form of interregional networks, in which the local governments create action programs which are run by each region based on their own proportion and capability.

Specifically, the span of interregional network institutional format alternative was as followed: (a) partnership institution; this forum was similar to coordination, monitoring, and evaluation forum aiming as formulating, communicating, and coordinating the plans and activities in the sectors as well as monitoring and evaluating the activities planned in the planning stage, (b) coordination forum; this was a forum to communicate and coordinate the plans and activities in the sectors being cooperated, (c) coordination, monitoring, and evaluation forum; this was a forum to formulate, communicate, and coordinate the plans and activities in the sectors being cooperated as well as monitoring and evaluating the activities planned in the planning stage. The joint venture institutional model guaranteed the better public services. This partnership included the agreement of every member to be shareholders (owners), not to be the doers or managers [2,1,16,10].

Up to now, in Indonesia, there were a lot of forums or interregional partnership with varied forms. This phenomenon occurred because the existence of the interregional partnership was in the middle of opportunity and needs structures which supported and gave advantages to the practices of the interregional partnership in Indonesia. Despite the abundance numbers of the interregional partnership, the implementation of those interregional partnership was still far from ideal.


According to the research findings and discussions above, it can be concluded that generally, the East Java government has played an active role institutionally and substantially based on the constitution and its proportion as a province. There are some factors underlying the interregional networks, such as transparency. In an interregional partnership, transparency from both parties is highly needed. Robustness, the effectiveness of an interregional partnership institutions depends on the robustness of both parties. Transformation rules, the frequent changes of rules in an interregional partnership institution will not make the network any effective. Government capacity, the effectiveness of an interregional partnership depends on the capacity of each local government. Distribution of powers, the wide gap in the distribution of powers within the members of institution will fail them. Interdependence, the member of interregional partnership depends on one another. Intellectual order, the interregional partnership will not run in a long term when the intellectual substructure diminished. Last but not least, the interregional partnership model becomes a spirit and it is reflected in the principles of establishment and management of the interregional partnership. The principles are as follows: equal partnership, synergic and mutualism symbiosis, need-based, engagement and ownership, flexible, legitimation, effective, accountable and transparent, and sustainable.


Based on the conclusion, the recommendations given are as followed. First, to establish and develop an interregional partnership, there has to be a mechanism whose role is ensure the government in every level and civil society as well as the private sectors to involve actively in the partnership. To implement the recommendation, the province government of East Java has to make the mechanism and operational standard procedures which involve the stakeholders. The province government of East Java has also embrace the civil society and private sectors. To make the interregional partnership successful, it must be understood that it is not only an attempt to fulfill the regencies or cities' needs, but it also becomes a strategic attempt to reach the goal of national development. Therefore, in the action agenda, it must be clear who carries out which and how to carry it out regarding to the partnership development.


This is research supported by Research and Development Agency (BALITBANG) of The Province Government of East Java, Indonesia. Therefore, we would like to thank BALITBANG of The Province Government of East Java and also thanks to Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat, Universitas Negeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia.



Albrow, M. 2005. Bureaucracy.Jakarta. Tiara Wacana.


Alison, G.T. 1971. Essence of Decision making: Explaining The Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston. Little Brown.


AlGore. 1994. Commons Sense Government, Works Better and Cost less, The Third Report of The National Performance Review.


Askenas, R. Ulric, D. Jick, T. and Kerr, S. 1995. The Boundaryless Organization, breaking the Cain of organization structure, Jossy-Bass Publisher, San Francisco, CA.


Bryant, C. & Louise G. W. 1989. The Development Management for Developing Countries (Translated version) second edition. Jakarta. LP3ES.


Blair, J. P. 1991. Urban and Regional Economics, in Iwan Nugroho and Rochim Dahuri. 2004, Regional Development, Economic Perspective, Social and Environment. Jakarta. LP3ES.


Cheema, S. and Dennis R. 1983. Decentralization and Development, Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publications.


David, O. 1997. Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies For Reinventing Government, Sharpe Inc. New York.


David, O. 2000. The Reinventor's Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming Your Government. Sharpe Inc. New York.


David, O. 1992. Reinventing Government. Sharpe Inc. New York


Denhard, J. V. 2003. The New Public Service: Serving not Steering, M.E. Sharpe Inc. New York.


De Rivero, O. 2002. The Myth of Development The Non — Variable Economies of The 21st Century, Zed Book Ltd. New York.


Dunleavy, P. 1980. Social and Political Theory and the Issue in Central-Local Relations' dalam Jones, GW (1980, ed), New Approaches to the study of Central-LocalGovernment Relationships, Gower & SSRC, Aldershot. Hant.


Friedman, J. And Mike, D. 1995. Agropolitan Development :Towards a New Strategy for Regional Planning in Asia.


Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust, The Social Vertues And The Creation Of Prosperity, The Free Press. New York.


Gelinas, J. B. 2003. Juggernaut Politics, Understanding Predatory Globalization, Zed Books.London & New York.


Glasson, J. 1983. An Introduction to Regional Planning: Concepts, Theory and Practice, Chapter 2, "The Region in Regional Planning,".


Goggin, L. Malcolm, A. B. James P. L. and O'Toole, Jr. 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice Toward a Third Generation, Foresman and Company. Glenview, Illionis London, England.


Heckscher, C. and Donnellon, A. 1994. The Post Bureaucratic Organization, new perspective on organization change. Sage Publication, thousand Oaks, CA.


Law Number 50 Year 2007 about Regional Financial Balance. Republic of Indonesia.


Le C. H. & Syed H. A. K. 2015. Dynamic Support of Government in Online Shopping. Asian Social Science; Vol. 11, No. 22. ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025. Published by Canadian Centerof Science and Education.


Lincoln, Y. S. 1990. The making of a constructivist. In E. G. Guba (Ed.),The paradigm dialog(pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.


Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 2003. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publication.


Morgan, G. 1983. More on metaphor Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,601 607.


Nasikh. 2013. A Model of Collaborative Forest Resources Management to Improve The Prosperity of Poor Family Farmers in East Java. Indonesian Journal of Geography. Vol 45 No 1, June 2013 page 80-89. Faculty of Geography UGM and The Indonesian Geographers Association


Nasikh, Ery Tri Djatmika R.W.W., Budi Eko Soetjipto, and Gatot Isnani. 2015. Model of Affordable and HighQuality Education Policy in Tulungagung Regency East Java Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 10, No. 10; 2015 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 Published by Canadian Centerof Science and Education; Page 263-269


Nasikh. 2014. Horizontal Management of Forest Resources to Enhance the Partnership and Account Ability in Pasuruan, East Java, Indonesia. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799); Volume 02 – Issue 05, October 2014, Page 685-688


Nasikh. 2017. Institutional Model and Activities of Destitute Society Around Forest as an Attempt to Develop the Sustainable and Equitable Forest in East Java, Indonesia. Periodica Polytechnica Social and ManagementSciences. OnlineFirst (2017) paper 8536. Online ISSN: 1587-3803. Print ISSN: 1416-3837. Volume 25. No. 1. June 2017.


Regional Regulation Number 9 Year 2012aboutthe Regional Landscaping Planning of Tuban Regency in 2011-2031.


The Agreement between East Java Province and Regencies and Cities Governments. (2009). Regional Development Planning.


The Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 23 Year 2009 about the Technical Guidelines of Interregional Partnership andThe Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 23 Year 2009 about the Procedures of Management and Supervision of Interregional Partnership


Yongwen L. & Jie L. 2015. Research on Cohesion of Top Management Team of Family Enterprises: A Review Based on Conflict Management. Asian Social Science; Vol. 11, No. 24; 2015. ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025. Published by Canadian Centerof Science and Education



  • Downloads 20
  • Views 99



ISSN: 2518-668X